niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: For a perfect clone, down to the quantum level, both would be the real Angier. That is the essence of his fear. The real Angier will be killed every time. When you download a movie what you are doing is actually making a perfect copy of the movie. Which is the real movie? They all are. This is very different from making copies of film reels where only the original have the quality of the original (each copy adds a little imperfection). Now, the question The Prestige asks is what if you can make a perfect clone of a person the way you can perfectly copy digital data? In one sense, if we don't want to get too uncomfortable we can always say the remaining copy is now the real data and the deleted copy is not real anymore. But if you really think about it and get out of your comfort zone you will realize that both people are real and what you have done is murdered yourself. In The Prestige this point is much more clearly made as the old copied Angier becomes the one who is killed. Not the newly created clone. Every time the clone will have only the memory of the surviving Angier. But every time Angier experiences death, only the Angier that experienced death has no way of passing that memory to the surviving Angier so the survivor can never know what dying feels like.  <sep>  Q: How does it work that the clones are sentient paradox? A: For a perfect clone, down to the quantum level, both would be the real Angier  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is the consciousness split among the various clones?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The film depends heavily on the events of X-Men 3: The Last Stand. In that film, Wolverine does something he regrets heavily, and it is the basis for his character arc in The Wolverine. So to fully appreciate this film, you should watch X-Men 3. But to fully appreciate X-Men 3, you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories. You can skip X-Men: First Class, as it has no bearing on The Wolverine. And you should skip X-Men Origins: Wolverine for the many reasons critics described back when it was released (it also doesn't have much bearing on The Wolverine). Alternatively, if you're familiar with the X-Men from the comics, and are aware of some of the key storylines that occurred there, you can read this spoiler to get up to speed: In X-Men 3, Jean Grey is taken over by the Phoenix. She goes on a rampage, allies with Magneto and begins a mutant vs. human war. Wolverine is forced to kill her because she's completely out of control.  <sep>  Q: Can The Wolverine be viewed as a stand-alone film?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The film depends heavily on the events of X-Men 3: The Last Stand. In that film, Wolverine does something he regrets heavily, and it is the basis for his character arc in The Wolverine. So to fully appreciate this film, you should watch X-Men 3. But to fully appreciate X-Men 3, you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories. You can skip X-Men: First Class, as it has no bearing on The Wolverine. And you should skip X-Men Origins: Wolverine for the many reasons critics described back when it was released (it also doesn't have much bearing on The Wolverine). Alternatively, if you're familiar with the X-Men from the comics, and are aware of some of the key storylines that occurred there, you can read this spoiler to get up to speed: In X-Men 3, Jean Grey is taken over by the Phoenix. She goes on a rampage, allies with Magneto and begins a mutant vs. human war. Wolverine is forced to kill her because she's completely out of control.  <sep>  Q: Can The Wolverine be viewed as a stand-alone film? A: to fully appreciate X-Men 3, you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Will I miss anything if I skip the first movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The film depends heavily on the events of X-Men 3: The Last Stand. In that film, Wolverine does something he regrets heavily, and it is the basis for his character arc in The Wolverine. So to fully appreciate this film, you should watch X-Men 3. But to fully appreciate X-Men 3, you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories. You can skip X-Men: First Class, as it has no bearing on The Wolverine. And you should skip X-Men Origins: Wolverine for the many reasons critics described back when it was released (it also doesn't have much bearing on The Wolverine). Alternatively, if you're familiar with the X-Men from the comics, and are aware of some of the key storylines that occurred there, you can read this spoiler to get up to speed: In X-Men 3, Jean Grey is taken over by the Phoenix. She goes on a rampage, allies with Magneto and begins a mutant vs. human war. Wolverine is forced to kill her because she's completely out of control.  <sep>  Q: Can The Wolverine be viewed as a stand-alone film? A: to fully appreciate X-Men 3, you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories  Q: Will I miss anything if I skip the first movie? A: you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who are the main actors in this film?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The film depends heavily on the events of X-Men 3: The Last Stand. In that film, Wolverine does something he regrets heavily, and it is the basis for his character arc in The Wolverine. So to fully appreciate this film, you should watch X-Men 3. But to fully appreciate X-Men 3, you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories. You can skip X-Men: First Class, as it has no bearing on The Wolverine. And you should skip X-Men Origins: Wolverine for the many reasons critics described back when it was released (it also doesn't have much bearing on The Wolverine). Alternatively, if you're familiar with the X-Men from the comics, and are aware of some of the key storylines that occurred there, you can read this spoiler to get up to speed: In X-Men 3, Jean Grey is taken over by the Phoenix. She goes on a rampage, allies with Magneto and begins a mutant vs. human war. Wolverine is forced to kill her because she's completely out of control.  <sep>  Q: Can The Wolverine be viewed as a stand-alone film? A: to fully appreciate X-Men 3, you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories  Q: Will I miss anything if I skip the first movie? A: you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories  Q: Who are the main actors in this film? A: Wolverine  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What should I look for in the second movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The film depends heavily on the events of X-Men 3: The Last Stand. In that film, Wolverine does something he regrets heavily, and it is the basis for his character arc in The Wolverine. So to fully appreciate this film, you should watch X-Men 3. But to fully appreciate X-Men 3, you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories. You can skip X-Men: First Class, as it has no bearing on The Wolverine. And you should skip X-Men Origins: Wolverine for the many reasons critics described back when it was released (it also doesn't have much bearing on The Wolverine). Alternatively, if you're familiar with the X-Men from the comics, and are aware of some of the key storylines that occurred there, you can read this spoiler to get up to speed: In X-Men 3, Jean Grey is taken over by the Phoenix. She goes on a rampage, allies with Magneto and begins a mutant vs. human war. Wolverine is forced to kill her because she's completely out of control.  <sep>  Q: Can The Wolverine be viewed as a stand-alone film? A: to fully appreciate X-Men 3, you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories  Q: Will I miss anything if I skip the first movie? A: you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories  Q: Who are the main actors in this film? A: Wolverine  Q: What should I look for in the second movie? A: a continuation of those stories  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are there any sequels?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The film depends heavily on the events of X-Men 3: The Last Stand. In that film, Wolverine does something he regrets heavily, and it is the basis for his character arc in The Wolverine. So to fully appreciate this film, you should watch X-Men 3. But to fully appreciate X-Men 3, you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories. You can skip X-Men: First Class, as it has no bearing on The Wolverine. And you should skip X-Men Origins: Wolverine for the many reasons critics described back when it was released (it also doesn't have much bearing on The Wolverine). Alternatively, if you're familiar with the X-Men from the comics, and are aware of some of the key storylines that occurred there, you can read this spoiler to get up to speed: In X-Men 3, Jean Grey is taken over by the Phoenix. She goes on a rampage, allies with Magneto and begins a mutant vs. human war. Wolverine is forced to kill her because she's completely out of control.  <sep>  Q: Can The Wolverine be viewed as a stand-alone film? A: to fully appreciate X-Men 3, you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories  Q: Will I miss anything if I skip the first movie? A: you should see X-Men and X-Men 2, since it's a sequel to those, and a continuation of those stories  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the duration time of the film?
Output: No
CONTEXT: To me, this makes perfect sense. Given that we never know where the Aliens come from, how long the trip takes, or what happens to the people on the ship, I assume that the return of missing vehicles and such corresponds with the overall plot of the film. The aliens are returning stuff in an attempt to progress contact with humans. It is all stuff they took in an inquisitive manner (or maybe just to show they could). The reason Barry is returned so soon is that his abduction corresponds close in time with that final interaction. If nothing came of all that interaction, I would assume child Barry would show up years later during the next attempted contact. But this is all just speculation and opinion. Realistically, it is probably just an emotional tie that Spielberg wanted.  <sep>  Q: Why did the aliens return Barry so soon, in 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind'?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: To me, this makes perfect sense. Given that we never know where the Aliens come from, how long the trip takes, or what happens to the people on the ship, I assume that the return of missing vehicles and such corresponds with the overall plot of the film. The aliens are returning stuff in an attempt to progress contact with humans. It is all stuff they took in an inquisitive manner (or maybe just to show they could). The reason Barry is returned so soon is that his abduction corresponds close in time with that final interaction. If nothing came of all that interaction, I would assume child Barry would show up years later during the next attempted contact. But this is all just speculation and opinion. Realistically, it is probably just an emotional tie that Spielberg wanted.  <sep>  Q: Why did the aliens return Barry so soon, in 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind'? A: The reason Barry is returned so soon is that his abduction corresponds close in time with that final interaction  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what are the things aliens returned to earth?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: To me, this makes perfect sense. Given that we never know where the Aliens come from, how long the trip takes, or what happens to the people on the ship, I assume that the return of missing vehicles and such corresponds with the overall plot of the film. The aliens are returning stuff in an attempt to progress contact with humans. It is all stuff they took in an inquisitive manner (or maybe just to show they could). The reason Barry is returned so soon is that his abduction corresponds close in time with that final interaction. If nothing came of all that interaction, I would assume child Barry would show up years later during the next attempted contact. But this is all just speculation and opinion. Realistically, it is probably just an emotional tie that Spielberg wanted.  <sep>  Q: Why did the aliens return Barry so soon, in 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind'? A: The reason Barry is returned so soon is that his abduction corresponds close in time with that final interaction  Q: what are the things aliens returned to earth? A: missing vehicles  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: why there is a fat thor in avengers end game?
Output: No
CONTEXT: To me, this makes perfect sense. Given that we never know where the Aliens come from, how long the trip takes, or what happens to the people on the ship, I assume that the return of missing vehicles and such corresponds with the overall plot of the film. The aliens are returning stuff in an attempt to progress contact with humans. It is all stuff they took in an inquisitive manner (or maybe just to show they could). The reason Barry is returned so soon is that his abduction corresponds close in time with that final interaction. If nothing came of all that interaction, I would assume child Barry would show up years later during the next attempted contact. But this is all just speculation and opinion. Realistically, it is probably just an emotional tie that Spielberg wanted.  <sep>  Q: Why did the aliens return Barry so soon, in 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind'? A: The reason Barry is returned so soon is that his abduction corresponds close in time with that final interaction  Q: what are the things aliens returned to earth? A: missing vehicles  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what is the name of dog in john wick chaper 1
Output: No
CONTEXT: To the first question: He realized he killed his sister (and lover). He had imagined that she did kill herself, after the bad mouth from the others (including Oh Dae-su, that's why the revenge). But in the process, he (I can't remember his name) is reminded that he couldn't stand the rumors, so he killed her. As this falls into place in his mind, he kills himself out of guilt. For the second question, I didn't get that Oh was hypnotized again at the end, to forget that about Mi-do. I thought he cut out the tongue so that the antagonist would not tell Mi-do. If that's so with hypnosis again (I don't own the DVD, can't check), I think it should be open to interpretation for the viewer what Oh knows at the end.  <sep>  Q: I am wondering why the antagonist kills himself at the end of "Old Boy'?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: To the first question: He realized he killed his sister (and lover). He had imagined that she did kill herself, after the bad mouth from the others (including Oh Dae-su, that's why the revenge). But in the process, he (I can't remember his name) is reminded that he couldn't stand the rumors, so he killed her. As this falls into place in his mind, he kills himself out of guilt. For the second question, I didn't get that Oh was hypnotized again at the end, to forget that about Mi-do. I thought he cut out the tongue so that the antagonist would not tell Mi-do. If that's so with hypnosis again (I don't own the DVD, can't check), I think it should be open to interpretation for the viewer what Oh knows at the end.  <sep>  Q: I am wondering why the antagonist kills himself at the end of "Old Boy'? A: he kills himself out of guilt  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So did the final hypnosis work on the protagonist?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: To the first question: He realized he killed his sister (and lover). He had imagined that she did kill herself, after the bad mouth from the others (including Oh Dae-su, that's why the revenge). But in the process, he (I can't remember his name) is reminded that he couldn't stand the rumors, so he killed her. As this falls into place in his mind, he kills himself out of guilt. For the second question, I didn't get that Oh was hypnotized again at the end, to forget that about Mi-do. I thought he cut out the tongue so that the antagonist would not tell Mi-do. If that's so with hypnosis again (I don't own the DVD, can't check), I think it should be open to interpretation for the viewer what Oh knows at the end.  <sep>  Q: I am wondering why the antagonist kills himself at the end of "Old Boy'? A: he kills himself out of guilt  Q: So did the final hypnosis work on the protagonist? A: I think it should be open to interpretation for the viewer what Oh knows at the end  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I felt horrible after watching this movie. Is the movie disturbing to you?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: To the first question: He realized he killed his sister (and lover). He had imagined that she did kill herself, after the bad mouth from the others (including Oh Dae-su, that's why the revenge). But in the process, he (I can't remember his name) is reminded that he couldn't stand the rumors, so he killed her. As this falls into place in his mind, he kills himself out of guilt. For the second question, I didn't get that Oh was hypnotized again at the end, to forget that about Mi-do. I thought he cut out the tongue so that the antagonist would not tell Mi-do. If that's so with hypnosis again (I don't own the DVD, can't check), I think it should be open to interpretation for the viewer what Oh knows at the end.  <sep>  Q: I am wondering why the antagonist kills himself at the end of "Old Boy'? A: he kills himself out of guilt  Q: So did the final hypnosis work on the protagonist? A: I think it should be open to interpretation for the viewer what Oh knows at the end  Q: I felt horrible after watching this movie. Is the movie disturbing to you? A: He realized he killed his sister (and lover). He had imagined that she did kill herself  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: The puppet master seems so hopeless. Do you think he would have committed suicide even if his revenge had failed?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This is a highly opinionated question because people will feel different about what is considered "end of origin story". I argue the whole movie is an origin story. It starts in the beginning of him being a surgeon, loosing his ability to operate, searching for solutions, the whole "superhero in training montage", climax where he finds out his true purpose and powers and ending in him being what is considered to be The Doctor Strange everybody knows. There is no cut in the movie where you could say: "Okay, NOW origin is over" because (again, highly opinionated), only at the end of the movie is the character fully developed and whole. Anything in between is just a half truth.  <sep>  Q: How much of Doctor Strange is origin story?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This is a highly opinionated question because people will feel different about what is considered "end of origin story". I argue the whole movie is an origin story. It starts in the beginning of him being a surgeon, loosing his ability to operate, searching for solutions, the whole "superhero in training montage", climax where he finds out his true purpose and powers and ending in him being what is considered to be The Doctor Strange everybody knows. There is no cut in the movie where you could say: "Okay, NOW origin is over" because (again, highly opinionated), only at the end of the movie is the character fully developed and whole. Anything in between is just a half truth.  <sep>  Q: How much of Doctor Strange is origin story? A: the whole movie is an origin story  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do we see Doctor Strange go to another country?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This is a highly opinionated question because people will feel different about what is considered "end of origin story". I argue the whole movie is an origin story. It starts in the beginning of him being a surgeon, loosing his ability to operate, searching for solutions, the whole "superhero in training montage", climax where he finds out his true purpose and powers and ending in him being what is considered to be The Doctor Strange everybody knows. There is no cut in the movie where you could say: "Okay, NOW origin is over" because (again, highly opinionated), only at the end of the movie is the character fully developed and whole. Anything in between is just a half truth.  <sep>  Q: How much of Doctor Strange is origin story? A: the whole movie is an origin story  Q: Do we see Doctor Strange go to another country? A: t starts in the beginning of him being a surgeon, loosing his ability to  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does it stay in the US?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This is a highly opinionated question because people will feel different about what is considered "end of origin story". I argue the whole movie is an origin story. It starts in the beginning of him being a surgeon, loosing his ability to operate, searching for solutions, the whole "superhero in training montage", climax where he finds out his true purpose and powers and ending in him being what is considered to be The Doctor Strange everybody knows. There is no cut in the movie where you could say: "Okay, NOW origin is over" because (again, highly opinionated), only at the end of the movie is the character fully developed and whole. Anything in between is just a half truth.  <sep>  Q: How much of Doctor Strange is origin story? A: the whole movie is an origin story  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, we learn about this character?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think you have misunderstood. The news report was about the (possible) resignation of the Prime Minister after a scandal. It had nothing to do with the investigation into the assassination or the bombing. The news report states that Steven Hunter-Dunn, the Director of the Security Service was under investigation for leaking the compromising material on the Prime Minister although this is probably a frame-up by Anne Sampson.  <sep>  Q: Did it have anything to do with an alliance between Islamic terrorist and organized crime?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think you have misunderstood. The news report was about the (possible) resignation of the Prime Minister after a scandal. It had nothing to do with the investigation into the assassination or the bombing. The news report states that Steven Hunter-Dunn, the Director of the Security Service was under investigation for leaking the compromising material on the Prime Minister although this is probably a frame-up by Anne Sampson.  <sep>  Q: Why was this character mentioned in the News in the final moments of Bodyguard?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think you have misunderstood. The news report was about the (possible) resignation of the Prime Minister after a scandal. It had nothing to do with the investigation into the assassination or the bombing. The news report states that Steven Hunter-Dunn, the Director of the Security Service was under investigation for leaking the compromising material on the Prime Minister although this is probably a frame-up by Anne Sampson.  <sep>  Q: Did it have anything to do with an alliance between Islamic terrorist and organized crime? A: I think you have misunderstood  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did you see the movie Bodyguard?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Because when Kai was trying to Destroy the Pandas & the panda village, Oogway took the side of Pandas to protect them. Oogway took the right side. So, while kai was like a Brother to Oogway, the latter chose to fight Against Kai even he Helps Oogway So much. That's why kai said to betray you betrayed me.  <sep>  Q: Why did Kai believe that Oogway betrayed him in Kung Fu Panda 3?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Because when Kai was trying to Destroy the Pandas & the panda village, Oogway took the side of Pandas to protect them. Oogway took the right side. So, while kai was like a Brother to Oogway, the latter chose to fight Against Kai even he Helps Oogway So much. That's why kai said to betray you betrayed me.  <sep>  Q: Why did Kai believe that Oogway betrayed him in Kung Fu Panda 3? A: Because when Kai was trying to Destroy the Pandas & the panda village, Oogway took the side of Pandas to protect them  Q: How did he take Pandas side? A: Oogway took the right side  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: We're the two close friends?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Because when Kai was trying to Destroy the Pandas & the panda village, Oogway took the side of Pandas to protect them. Oogway took the right side. So, while kai was like a Brother to Oogway, the latter chose to fight Against Kai even he Helps Oogway So much. That's why kai said to betray you betrayed me.  <sep>  Q: Why did Kai believe that Oogway betrayed him in Kung Fu Panda 3? A: Because when Kai was trying to Destroy the Pandas & the panda village, Oogway took the side of Pandas to protect them  Q: How did he take Pandas side? A: Oogway took the right side  Q: We're the two close friends? A: the right side. So, while kai was like a Brother to Oogwa  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did the friendship dissolve?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Because when Kai was trying to Destroy the Pandas & the panda village, Oogway took the side of Pandas to protect them. Oogway took the right side. So, while kai was like a Brother to Oogway, the latter chose to fight Against Kai even he Helps Oogway So much. That's why kai said to betray you betrayed me.  <sep>  Q: Why did Kai believe that Oogway betrayed him in Kung Fu Panda 3? A: Because when Kai was trying to Destroy the Pandas & the panda village, Oogway took the side of Pandas to protect them  Q: How did he take Pandas side? A: Oogway took the right side  Q: We're the two close friends? A: the right side. So, while kai was like a Brother to Oogwa  Q: Why did the friendship dissolve? A: the latter chose to fight Against Kai  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did he say to him?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Because when Kai was trying to Destroy the Pandas & the panda village, Oogway took the side of Pandas to protect them. Oogway took the right side. So, while kai was like a Brother to Oogway, the latter chose to fight Against Kai even he Helps Oogway So much. That's why kai said to betray you betrayed me.  <sep>  Q: Why did Kai believe that Oogway betrayed him in Kung Fu Panda 3? A: Because when Kai was trying to Destroy the Pandas & the panda village, Oogway took the side of Pandas to protect them  Q: How did he take Pandas side? A: Oogway took the right side  Q: We're the two close friends? A: the right side. So, while kai was like a Brother to Oogwa  Q: Why did the friendship dissolve? A: the latter chose to fight Against Kai  Q: What did he say to him? A: kai said to betray you betrayed me  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did they not become friends?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Tyrion did give the necklace to Ros, but we never actually see him do it. We know about it from another scene. When Ros and Theon Greyjoy are together she's wearing the necklace and tells him that it was a gift from Tyrion. As for why, Tyrion is usually very generous to the whores he beds, and he is extremely wealthy. A necklace of that sort wouldn't have meant much to him.  <sep>  Q: Why did Tyrion give the Lannister pendant to Ros?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Tyrion did give the necklace to Ros, but we never actually see him do it. We know about it from another scene. When Ros and Theon Greyjoy are together she's wearing the necklace and tells him that it was a gift from Tyrion. As for why, Tyrion is usually very generous to the whores he beds, and he is extremely wealthy. A necklace of that sort wouldn't have meant much to him.  <sep>  Q: Why did Tyrion give the Lannister pendant to Ros? A: Tyrion is usually very generous to the whores he beds, and he is extremely wealthy  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you know when he gave Ros the pendant?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Tyrion did give the necklace to Ros, but we never actually see him do it. We know about it from another scene. When Ros and Theon Greyjoy are together she's wearing the necklace and tells him that it was a gift from Tyrion. As for why, Tyrion is usually very generous to the whores he beds, and he is extremely wealthy. A necklace of that sort wouldn't have meant much to him.  <sep>  Q: Why did Tyrion give the Lannister pendant to Ros? A: Tyrion is usually very generous to the whores he beds, and he is extremely wealthy  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does Cersei believe that Tyrion is in love with Ros?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Tyrion did give the necklace to Ros, but we never actually see him do it. We know about it from another scene. When Ros and Theon Greyjoy are together she's wearing the necklace and tells him that it was a gift from Tyrion. As for why, Tyrion is usually very generous to the whores he beds, and he is extremely wealthy. A necklace of that sort wouldn't have meant much to him.  <sep>  Q: Why did Tyrion give the Lannister pendant to Ros? A: Tyrion is usually very generous to the whores he beds, and he is extremely wealthy  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was it in Winterfell that Ros received the pendant from him? Do you know?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Alan Rickman was actually parodying himself when he complained about being a "real actor". Rickman was originally a Shakespearean actor, as was Patrick Stewart. So, I suppose there was a little of both of those actors in that character. William Shatner's need to be the center of attention, which is at the center of the long-standing coldness between Takei and Shatner, is clearly evident in Tim Allen's character. It's fairly apparent that Guy Fleegman (played by Sam Rockwell) took a page out of Bill Paxton's book from Alien (which would be a clear homage to Sigourney Weaver). If you recall, Paxton's character is hyper-paranoid about being killed (who doesn't love when he says, "Game over, man. Game over!"?) and Guy Fleegman is also fixated on not getting killed.  <sep>  Q: What was William Shatner's role in Galaxy Quest?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Alan Rickman was actually parodying himself when he complained about being a "real actor". Rickman was originally a Shakespearean actor, as was Patrick Stewart. So, I suppose there was a little of both of those actors in that character. William Shatner's need to be the center of attention, which is at the center of the long-standing coldness between Takei and Shatner, is clearly evident in Tim Allen's character. It's fairly apparent that Guy Fleegman (played by Sam Rockwell) took a page out of Bill Paxton's book from Alien (which would be a clear homage to Sigourney Weaver). If you recall, Paxton's character is hyper-paranoid about being killed (who doesn't love when he says, "Game over, man. Game over!"?) and Guy Fleegman is also fixated on not getting killed.  <sep>  Q: What was William Shatner's role in Galaxy Quest? A: Tim Allen's character  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did Patrick Stewart compare Shatner's role to Shakespeare?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Alan Rickman was actually parodying himself when he complained about being a "real actor". Rickman was originally a Shakespearean actor, as was Patrick Stewart. So, I suppose there was a little of both of those actors in that character. William Shatner's need to be the center of attention, which is at the center of the long-standing coldness between Takei and Shatner, is clearly evident in Tim Allen's character. It's fairly apparent that Guy Fleegman (played by Sam Rockwell) took a page out of Bill Paxton's book from Alien (which would be a clear homage to Sigourney Weaver). If you recall, Paxton's character is hyper-paranoid about being killed (who doesn't love when he says, "Game over, man. Game over!"?) and Guy Fleegman is also fixated on not getting killed.  <sep>  Q: What was William Shatner's role in Galaxy Quest? A: Tim Allen's character  Q: Why did Patrick Stewart compare Shatner's role to Shakespeare? A: I suppose there was a little of both of those actors in that character  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who did Alan Rickman play?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Alan Rickman was actually parodying himself when he complained about being a "real actor". Rickman was originally a Shakespearean actor, as was Patrick Stewart. So, I suppose there was a little of both of those actors in that character. William Shatner's need to be the center of attention, which is at the center of the long-standing coldness between Takei and Shatner, is clearly evident in Tim Allen's character. It's fairly apparent that Guy Fleegman (played by Sam Rockwell) took a page out of Bill Paxton's book from Alien (which would be a clear homage to Sigourney Weaver). If you recall, Paxton's character is hyper-paranoid about being killed (who doesn't love when he says, "Game over, man. Game over!"?) and Guy Fleegman is also fixated on not getting killed.  <sep>  Q: What was William Shatner's role in Galaxy Quest? A: Tim Allen's character  Q: Why did Patrick Stewart compare Shatner's role to Shakespeare? A: I suppose there was a little of both of those actors in that character  Q: Who did Alan Rickman play? A: Rickman was originally a Shakespearean actor  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Were the characters making fun of Star Trek in the movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Alan Rickman was actually parodying himself when he complained about being a "real actor". Rickman was originally a Shakespearean actor, as was Patrick Stewart. So, I suppose there was a little of both of those actors in that character. William Shatner's need to be the center of attention, which is at the center of the long-standing coldness between Takei and Shatner, is clearly evident in Tim Allen's character. It's fairly apparent that Guy Fleegman (played by Sam Rockwell) took a page out of Bill Paxton's book from Alien (which would be a clear homage to Sigourney Weaver). If you recall, Paxton's character is hyper-paranoid about being killed (who doesn't love when he says, "Game over, man. Game over!"?) and Guy Fleegman is also fixated on not getting killed.  <sep>  Q: What was William Shatner's role in Galaxy Quest? A: Tim Allen's character  Q: Why did Patrick Stewart compare Shatner's role to Shakespeare? A: I suppose there was a little of both of those actors in that character  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When was Galaxy Quest released?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Alan Rickman was actually parodying himself when he complained about being a "real actor". Rickman was originally a Shakespearean actor, as was Patrick Stewart. So, I suppose there was a little of both of those actors in that character. William Shatner's need to be the center of attention, which is at the center of the long-standing coldness between Takei and Shatner, is clearly evident in Tim Allen's character. It's fairly apparent that Guy Fleegman (played by Sam Rockwell) took a page out of Bill Paxton's book from Alien (which would be a clear homage to Sigourney Weaver). If you recall, Paxton's character is hyper-paranoid about being killed (who doesn't love when he says, "Game over, man. Game over!"?) and Guy Fleegman is also fixated on not getting killed.  <sep>  Q: What was William Shatner's role in Galaxy Quest? A: Tim Allen's character  Q: Why did Patrick Stewart compare Shatner's role to Shakespeare? A: I suppose there was a little of both of those actors in that character  Q: Who did Alan Rickman play? A: Rickman was originally a Shakespearean actor  Q: Were the characters making fun of Star Trek in the movie? A: and Guy Fleegman is also fixated on not getting killed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was Galaxy Quest making fun of any other Sci Fi movies?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny. Having a dour anti-government personality is great for Leslie to play off of. However, Ron also keeps his job because he wants to make the government as inefficient as possible. He doesn't just see high spending as bad but everything the government actually gets done. He keeps his position so he can slow things down and so he can hire inefficient people. This is especially highlighted in his episodes with Tom and April, who he hired because they were inefficient and unmotivated.  <sep>  Q: Why does Ron Swanson work at the Parks Department?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny. Having a dour anti-government personality is great for Leslie to play off of. However, Ron also keeps his job because he wants to make the government as inefficient as possible. He doesn't just see high spending as bad but everything the government actually gets done. He keeps his position so he can slow things down and so he can hire inefficient people. This is especially highlighted in his episodes with Tom and April, who he hired because they were inefficient and unmotivated.  <sep>  Q: Why does Ron Swanson work at the Parks Department? A: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what is the rule of funny excactly?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny. Having a dour anti-government personality is great for Leslie to play off of. However, Ron also keeps his job because he wants to make the government as inefficient as possible. He doesn't just see high spending as bad but everything the government actually gets done. He keeps his position so he can slow things down and so he can hire inefficient people. This is especially highlighted in his episodes with Tom and April, who he hired because they were inefficient and unmotivated.  <sep>  Q: Why does Ron Swanson work at the Parks Department? A: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny  Q: what is the rule of funny excactly? A: Having a dour anti-government personality  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: oh ok i understand now. well i wonder if thats the way he was raised to feel that way
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny. Having a dour anti-government personality is great for Leslie to play off of. However, Ron also keeps his job because he wants to make the government as inefficient as possible. He doesn't just see high spending as bad but everything the government actually gets done. He keeps his position so he can slow things down and so he can hire inefficient people. This is especially highlighted in his episodes with Tom and April, who he hired because they were inefficient and unmotivated.  <sep>  Q: Why does Ron Swanson work at the Parks Department? A: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny  Q: what is the rule of funny excactly? A: Having a dour anti-government personality  Q: oh ok i understand now. well i wonder if thats the way he was raised to feel that way A: He doesn't just see high spending as bad but everything the government actually gets done  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: well it seems he has alot of experience in other areas. what dosn't he just change his surroundings and think process
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny. Having a dour anti-government personality is great for Leslie to play off of. However, Ron also keeps his job because he wants to make the government as inefficient as possible. He doesn't just see high spending as bad but everything the government actually gets done. He keeps his position so he can slow things down and so he can hire inefficient people. This is especially highlighted in his episodes with Tom and April, who he hired because they were inefficient and unmotivated.  <sep>  Q: Why does Ron Swanson work at the Parks Department? A: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny  Q: what is the rule of funny excactly? A: Having a dour anti-government personality  Q: oh ok i understand now. well i wonder if thats the way he was raised to feel that way A: He doesn't just see high spending as bad but everything the government actually gets done  Q: well it seems he has alot of experience in other areas. what dosn't he just change his surroundings and think process A: anti-government personality  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: well i can not say i blame him. i dont know why he keeps making himself misrable with it though
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny. Having a dour anti-government personality is great for Leslie to play off of. However, Ron also keeps his job because he wants to make the government as inefficient as possible. He doesn't just see high spending as bad but everything the government actually gets done. He keeps his position so he can slow things down and so he can hire inefficient people. This is especially highlighted in his episodes with Tom and April, who he hired because they were inefficient and unmotivated.  <sep>  Q: Why does Ron Swanson work at the Parks Department? A: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny  Q: what is the rule of funny excactly? A: Having a dour anti-government personality  Q: oh ok i understand now. well i wonder if thats the way he was raised to feel that way A: He doesn't just see high spending as bad but everything the government actually gets done  Q: well it seems he has alot of experience in other areas. what dosn't he just change his surroundings and think process A: anti-government personality  Q: well i can not say i blame him. i dont know why he keeps making himself misrable with it though A: This is especially highlighted in his episodes with Tom and April  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: he has alot of money, so why dosnt he try to fight the Goverment more and change things?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think it was worded that way for pragmatic reasons. Peter Jackson didn't want to tell the story of Sméagol until after the character Gollum was established. In The Fellowship of the Ring, the viewer is intended to see Gollum as a sort of beast. In The Two Towers, he has a much larger role and seems sort of halfway between beast and person, but a viewer who has not read the books is still unlikely to guess that he is a corrupted hobbit. The Return of the King opens with the story of Sméagol and Déagol to shed new light on who Gollum is, where he came from, why the Ring means so much to him, and what kind of influence the Ring wields over him. It is a bit of a shocking scene; the shock would not be nearly as strong if the viewer already knew Gollum's origin. So, in the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring, that Gollum was once a hobbit named Sméagol is an extraneous detail. While "the Ring came to Gollum" is an oversimplification, it was a necessary one; it told the viewer what he needed to know at that point in the story and no more.  <sep>  Q: Why does the narrator say 'The ring came to the creature Gollum'?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think it was worded that way for pragmatic reasons. Peter Jackson didn't want to tell the story of Sméagol until after the character Gollum was established. In The Fellowship of the Ring, the viewer is intended to see Gollum as a sort of beast. In The Two Towers, he has a much larger role and seems sort of halfway between beast and person, but a viewer who has not read the books is still unlikely to guess that he is a corrupted hobbit. The Return of the King opens with the story of Sméagol and Déagol to shed new light on who Gollum is, where he came from, why the Ring means so much to him, and what kind of influence the Ring wields over him. It is a bit of a shocking scene; the shock would not be nearly as strong if the viewer already knew Gollum's origin. So, in the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring, that Gollum was once a hobbit named Sméagol is an extraneous detail. While "the Ring came to Gollum" is an oversimplification, it was a necessary one; it told the viewer what he needed to know at that point in the story and no more.  <sep>  Q: Why does the narrator say 'The ring came to the creature Gollum'? A: In The Fellowship of the Ring, the viewer is intended to see Gollum as a sort of beast  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What wass the reason for making him appear as the beast?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch. He's definitely not (at least from Michael's point of view) an employee of the Scranton branch, so Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy. Toby's role as a HR employee would primarily be protecting Dunder Mifflin from Michael's stupidity. Michael Scott is, by design, an absolute idiot of a character. He's totally incompetent as a manager and also has absolutely no understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for the workplace, especially when occupying a managerial position. Toby would be the one who calls him up on his inappropriate conduct, reports that conduct back to corporate, and who would be responsible for telling Michael "no" before he does things that he shouldn't. Children will occasionally tell their parents that they hate them (or at least don't love them) when they've been denied something they want or have been told off for doing something they shouldn't. Michael's essentially having a childish - and ongoing - reaction against the authority figure who denies him the things he wants. The impression I got was that the other employees didn't have any particularly strong feelings about Toby either way. They didn't exactly dislike him but they didn't consider him a friend either.  <sep>  Q: Can you talk to me about the US version of the Office?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch. He's definitely not (at least from Michael's point of view) an employee of the Scranton branch, so Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy. Toby's role as a HR employee would primarily be protecting Dunder Mifflin from Michael's stupidity. Michael Scott is, by design, an absolute idiot of a character. He's totally incompetent as a manager and also has absolutely no understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for the workplace, especially when occupying a managerial position. Toby would be the one who calls him up on his inappropriate conduct, reports that conduct back to corporate, and who would be responsible for telling Michael "no" before he does things that he shouldn't. Children will occasionally tell their parents that they hate them (or at least don't love them) when they've been denied something they want or have been told off for doing something they shouldn't. Michael's essentially having a childish - and ongoing - reaction against the authority figure who denies him the things he wants. The impression I got was that the other employees didn't have any particularly strong feelings about Toby either way. They didn't exactly dislike him but they didn't consider him a friend either.  <sep>  Q: Can you talk to me about the US version of the Office? A: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think Michael was jealous that he had a corporate position or just upset that he had authority over him in some small way?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience of the channel or network airing a series with a number of pre-recorded episodes or at least a batch of them. For example, when a network buys or syndicates a series that has, let's say, 10 episodes and start airing the episodes in december, if they air episodes 1 and 2 but the christmas episode of the series is the number 10, they will air the 10th episode as the 3rd one to coincide wih the holidays. Other scenario is when something happens in the real world and the series has an episode that deals with a similar theme. Take as an example the shootings that happened in France recently. Some networks will alter the airing order of episodes in a series to avoid a similar subject to avoid the sensationalism, other may try to cash on it and air sooner an episode that dealed with something similar. Also, a network can try to get people into watching their series and getting high ratings, airing the "best" episodes of a series first (i.e. the ones with the more action, or drama, or sex, etc.). Then, when the series go to DVD the numbering order is usually the scripted order and not the airing one, that's why both differ.  <sep>  Q: What is the reason that the air order and the DVD order of a tv show is different?
Output: Yes